Libya to come to terms with a peaceful arrangement?

Both Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the president of the Arab League agreed to a peace plan from Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to end the crisis in the North African country, a news network said on Thursday. Chavez spoke to Gaddafi on Tuesday and laid out his proposal to seek a negotiated solution to the violence in Libya, Venezuela’s Information Minister Andres Izarra said, without giving more details.

A senior government official contacted by Reuters said he did not know what Gaddafi had said about Chavez’s idea to send representatives from several countries to Libya.

However, news network Al Jazeera said in a broadcast that during the call Gaddafi had accepted the plan, which would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East trying to reach a negotiated outcome between the Libyan leader and rebel forces.

Citing senior government sources, Al Jazeera’s Caracas Correspondent Dima Khatib said via her Twitter feed that Venezuela’s foreign minister had spoken with Arab League President Amr Moussa who also agreed to the plan.

Earlier in the day Moussa took a tough line on Libya, saying the Arab League could impose a “no fly zone” there to stop blood being spilled.

nrejones;1653609 wrote: The I saw the British foreign minister, William Hague, interviewed today and he seems to be advocating a ‘hands off’ approach to Libya, “Its their revolution to have” was the rhetoric used.

Given the outcome of other interventions in the region i think this is prudent.

Wrong.

Intervention to support people against oppression and a movement is not what has generally been involved with most interventions in the region. Further more the way the conflict is going, the longer it lasts the more divided the people will be, no matter the out come. You shouldn’t let that continue. As far as outside intervention, what kind is hard to say. I think you need a coalition of arab forces going in and backing up those fighting for freedom, with a blockade and no fly zone done by nato.

Intervention to support people against oppression and a movement is not what has generally been involved with most interventions in the region. Further more the way the conflict is going, the longer it lasts the more divided the people will be, no matter the out come. You shouldn’t let that continue. As far as outside intervention, what kind is hard to say. I think you need a coalition of arab forces going in and backing up those fighting for freedom, with a blockade and no fly zone done by nato.

hehe. One of the premises for invading iraq in 03 was that he was an oppressive dictator. There was some popular support for the american forces in Iraq at the time of ‘Iraqi freedom’. This soon soured. People simply loathe having foreign forces in their country arab, or otherwise. Muslim populations especially loathe having western military presences in their country.

Even if it is limited to a ‘no fly zone’ this will entail miltary strikes to disable their air defences and air capabilities. This will cause deaths and yield a likely negative reaction from a population which is 97% Muslim.

The US having carriers ‘nearby’ as a show of intent is the best strategy to encourage Gaddafi to resign without using actual force.

Intervention to support people against oppression and a movement is not what has generally been involved with most interventions in the region. Further more the way the conflict is going, the longer it lasts the more divided the people will be, no matter the out come. You shouldn’t let that continue. As far as outside intervention, what kind is hard to say. I think you need a coalition of arab forces going in and backing up those fighting for freedom, with a blockade and no fly zone done by nato.

So let me get this right. It’s OK to invade to save people from a maniacal dictator?

nrejones;1653827 wrote: hehe. One of the premises for invading iraq in 03 was that he was an oppressive dictator.

Actually it wasn’t. Discussion of Saddam’s oppression of his people never featured significantly in the initial push for the Second Gulf War. That only came to the fore as a justification later, after it became apparent that WMDs were conspicuously absent. I was writing a thesis on issues tangentially related at the time, so I was paying attention.

Scythe;1653839 wrote: Actually it wasn’t. Discussion of Saddam’s oppression of his people never featured significantly in the initial push for the Second Gulf War. That only came to the fore as a justification later, after it became apparent that WMDs were conspicuously absent. I was writing a thesis on issues tangentially related at the time, so I was paying attention.

Scythe;1653839 wrote: Actually it wasn’t. Discussion of Saddam’s oppression of his people never featured significantly in the initial push for the Second Gulf War. That only came to the fore as a justification later, after it became apparent that WMDs were conspicuously absent. I was writing a thesis on issues tangentially related at the time, so I was paying attention.

You must’ve been listening to a different George W Bush than to the one I was.